Wow. You've got a serious chip on your shoulder about this, huh?

I don't "love" space fighters-- as a matter of fact, I use them less often than nearly anyone I've played with. And I have played against fighters, lots of them; probably more so that anyone else on this list. And IN MY EXPERIENCE (again, emphasizing the fact that YMMV) there has not been a problem with their cost, over 12+ years of playing.

Their combat rating is mathematically defensible, if not completely justifiable due to the uncertainty involved in costing their strike-first capability. But as has been said many times already, if you find them unbalancing or unpalatable, up their cost. Period. Starmada is made for tweakin'. Nobody's gonna come in and arrest you if your fighters suddenly cost 75 or even 100 points.

Regarding ship-based countermeasures, I'm not sure what a "kludge" is, but some ideas:

Anti-Fighter Batteries (not exactly barn-busting, but get the job done-- they've gotten a bad rap on this list, IMHO)
Sunbursts (make 'em move around)
Shockwave (blows 'em up real good)
Low Shields (anything less than 4 makes 'em overpay for the halves shields capability)
High-ROF weapons (no point wasting PEN and DMG)
Small escort ships (triangular formations work well)
Point Defense System (fighters don't get to halve its effectiveness)
Mines (effective picket system)
Drones (like having your own fighters, but cheaper)
Battle Satellites (mobile mines)
Carronade (random, but nasty)
Electronic Warfare System (hit 'em without penalty)
Anime Spinal Mounts (line 'em up, take 'em out)

Yes, nearly all of these require you to survive at least one turn's worth of attacks from the enemy fighters -- but that's why you put out screening vessels...

You don't HAVE to have your own fighters (see above). However, they are admittedly the most logical counter.

The most popular sci-fi settings are roughly wet-navy based, with fighters galore (even Star Trek broke down and added the things by the end). Thus, creating the "Universal" starship combat system without a fairly substantial accommodation for fighters would be lunacy.

Starmada is not intended to be realistic... never laid claim to be. But if you really don't like fighters, you don't have to use them. And if your opponent insists upon it, there are several viable options, many of which have been discussed at length. In addition, we've been discussing two additional ones; the 1/2 ROF weapon and CSP. Heck, I'd even be willing to allow range-3 weapons as point defense.

Yup.

Me versus Brian Jurczyk, who designed the original Arcturan Federation ships. Lots and LOTS of fighters. I, on the other hand, used some fighters, but relied on defenses (ECM and AFB were standard on all Imperial Starmada vessels). Worked out pretty well -- relatively even chance of winning, provided I didn't do anything stupid.

Honestly, I'm not intending to be obstinate here, and I don't have any particular soft spot for fighters; I've listened to the concerns, and I know the damned things can be frustrating en masse. But I've also seen many people offer suggestions on how to deal with them as they are -- as well as some relatively simple house rules to tone them down.

Perhaps it's time to take a vote? Is it more inobtrusive to change fighter point costs, alter one (or more) of their special abilities, or arbitrarily limit the number you can field in a given fleet? Or something else? Or leave it alone, and let individual gaming groups decide for themselves?

For the record, if you were to build a ship with 3 hull points (because there are 6 fighters in a flight, but they take a hull hit twice as often), movement of 13 (for the 10-hex radius plus 3 for the fact that they effectively get to turn all the way around for free), six range-1, 1/1/1 weapons with Halves Shields, and Electronic Countermeasures, it would have a combat rating of 36 and take up 233 SUs.

The reason fighters are worth 50 is that I threw in a x2 multiplier for their ability to move and attack in their own phase. Even if you cranked the special modifier up to x3, that still only makes them worth 60 points.

The reason they take up 50 SUs is that they are short-ranged-- plus, most of that mass is taken up by the engines, which are computed for a hull-3 ship, but really take up much less space since we're talking about craft smaller than size 1. I can conceive of making fighter bays take up as much as 100 points, but the SU cost has nothing to do with their effectiveness on the battlefield.

Nope. The fighters, while on CSP, are by definition patrolling to prevent enemy fighter attacks. The appearance of a capital ship, cloaked or otherwise, means nothing to them.

Actually, it is... in the sense that I'm envisioning it. I agree that a mechanism that would allow flights to move faster than normal into striking range of enemy ships would not be CAP/CSP... but then I've already said that I would not allow CSP to be "flown" around ships that move more than the max speed of the patrolling flights -- and it's been clear from the beginning that once designated as CSP, flights can only react to fighters that move within 'range'.

Wow. Strong words for what is, at the moment, a work in progress...

I, too, do not believe it should be necessary for CSP flights to return to a carrier before going off patrol -- for one thing, that requires players to be using the launch/recovery optional rule; and one precept of Starmada is that all optional rules should be independent of each other.

The way I envision it is as follows:

1) A flight ends its move in the same hex as a friendly ship.

2) Instead of attacking, it declares itself to be on "CSP". Since it has already acted, the flight cannot be used to intercept until the following Fighter Phase.

3) During the next Movement Phase, the CSP flight moves with the ship it is "covering"; however, if the ship it is covering moves so that the flight would cover more distance that it could normally, then the CSP flight is left behind in the ship's starting hex and is immediately taken off CSP, forfeiting its activation in the upcoming Fighter Phase.

4) During the Fighter Phase, a flight on CSP is not activated normally; instead, it can be used to intercept opposing flights as described elsewhere.

5) A flight may be taken off CSP during the End Phase; however, if it does so, it forfeits its activation in the upcoming Fighter Phase.

6) If the ship being covered is destroyed, a flight on CSP may be moved to any adjacent, empty hex. If no such hexes exist, the flight is destroyed.

Hmm. Depends on what is meant by "broken". There are certainly situations in which they outperform expectations (e.g., against armour-5 targets), but they can also underperform (e.g., against unarmoured targets).

The effectiveness of weapons in Iron Stars are determined by a spreadsheet I've worked up determining the chance of scoring a hit against any combination of range and armour... this is then baselined so that a d4 gun has a value of 4, d6 is 6, and so on.

As the chart on p.41 of the Iron Stars rulebook shows, the Combat Rating of lightning projectors is anywhere from doubled (on a d12 gun) to quadrupled (on a d4 gun) -- with an average increase of x2.45.

To answer the question more directly, I have not experienced a significant "breakage" of the system. Lightning projectors are powerful, yes, but not invincible. They are still knocked out by damage -- and they waste their abilities against lightly-armoured targets. So, use your destroyers to swarm the LP-armed ships and you should be just fine.

Having said that, if two dreadnoughts face off, one with LPs and one without, the LP-equipped ship will win every time. But we've known for a while that Iron Stars is about fleet actions, not ship-to-ship duels.

That's 'cause Dan has been too lazy to work up a points system for Grand Fleets.

Nice report, btw...

Actually, you are using the term correctly; you're just overlooking the fact that the cost increases geometrically as well...

Each of the Ranged-Based abilities has a 1.6 multiplier, which are applied in combination. Thus, if you put all three on a single weapon, your final cost multiplier would be 4.096 (1.6^3).

You're getting the POSSIBILITY of 81 attacks; the chances of you getting all 81 points of damage is very small: even assuming a 2+ to-hit and shields of 1 on the target, the chance of a single 3/1/1 Range-Based^3 weapon getting 81 damage dice is only 0.14% (that's 14/100ths of a percent).

Your average success rate across all range bands is reflected by the multiplier-- which takes into account the fact (pointed out by Rich) that there are more target hexes at medium and long range than at short range.

With the 2+ to-hit and shields 1 example, your average number of hits is going to be 18.75, compared to 0.69 hits without the Range-Based abilities. This is still more success than would be anticipated by the 4.096 multiplier,  but much less than 81. Also, you're also assuming the best-case scenario.

> -----Original Message-----
> If a CSP flight waits until an attacking flight gets to
> within one hex to attack the ship that it's protecting, then
> the attacking flight will be within one hex of the CSP
> flight. That means that the intercept roll will always
> succeed. If I'm understanding the proposed rules, that is.
> I guess I just don't see the point of a CSP flight
> intercepting a flight more than one hex from the ship it's protecting.
> Kevin

There may not be a point in doing so, but it is an option-- for example, if a ship three hexes away gets jumped by enemy fighters, you can attempt to intercept them before they get to attack. But you're right; the most effective use of CSP is to protect a ship in the same hex.

Martin T4M-1 (USA) 1927
Hits 3
Speed 16
Altitude 1
Attack +1
Bombs -
Fuel ?
Torpedo: 1x USA 18"(45) Mk.7

Boeing F2B-1 (USA) 1922
Hits 2
Speed 23
Altitude 4
Attack +5
Bombs -
Fuel ?

No worries... this has been a confusing issue for some time, but I didn't want to prohibit the combo entirely.

Err... because the kamikaze fighter is piloted by an intelligent creature bent on its own destruction?

Seriously-- I don't know why that is, but it's the way the rules were written. I suppose knocking the to-hit for kamikazes down to 4+ to match drones would be appropriate, but it still undervalues fighters if kamikaze tactics are used as the rule rather than the exception.

Also, where did that "3 dice against the shields" thing come from? Whoever wrote that was delusional!

Yes... you are missing the fact that the kamikaze rules are intended to be used as a last-ditch measure in specific scenarios, and NOT as a standard tactic.

In effect, by declaring your fighters will ram in all cases, you are DOUBLING their chance of causing damage on the first round of combat (although reducing their potential to zero in subsequent rounds...)